[News] Prince Andrew interviewed about allegations

[Clive Walker]

You make an interesting observation Clamp, I was talking to the Mrs about this last night...... The firm, the Queen and the next 2 in line Charles and William will obvs prefer for this to go away, but they will all also want to protect the monarchy.

So at what point do they go from trying to protect Andrew to throwing him to the wolves.

If bad stuff or details go public and there's a big public uproar,I'm not so sure they can shield him. They will have to very mindful of public opinion and i wouldnt be surprised if Andy is cut loose to try and protect the survival of the firm from a baying public?

Family or the Crown?

No matter what avenue the RF choose it will not end well for them. They will be vilified regardless.

 

[herecomesaregular]

Some people hold the Royal family in the same esteem as the rock stars of the 60s, 70s & 80s and they also got away with an awful lot of stuff that was deemed "ok at the time" and ok due to their "status".

 

[Clive Walker]

This case can be considered a test as to whether or not having a royal family really is in the public interest. I am vehemently anti-royal and I make no apology for that, and one of my arguments is that the entire family is simply above the law (in fact, they are often protected in statute).

Surely Prince Andrew has to face up to these allegations? If not, it pretty much proves my point that even a relatively minor royal (with huge delusions of importance) can rape who he likes. (I'm not saying he's guilty, but if there is a case then it needs to be heard).

This is where I have been for so many of my adult years, totally anti royal.

Now comes the time where the overriding factor comes into play. The valid arguments about RF funding, land ownership, tourism, privacy, education and healthcare can be cast aside for the time being and now we come down to the most serious of points. Does Sovereign immunity, granted via winning the biological lottery, give you freedom to commit whatever crime you want without any risk of being being held to account?

If that really turns out to be the case then I really can't see how Joe Bloggs can accept that.

 

[peterward]

This is where I have been for so many of my adult years, totally anti royal.

Now comes the time where the overriding factor comes into play. The valid arguments about RF funding, land ownership, tourism, privacy, education and healthcare can be cast aside for the time being and now we come down to the most serious of points. Does Sovereign immunity, granted via winning the biological lottery, give you freedom to commit whatever crime you want without any risk of being being held to account?

If that really turns out to be the case then I really can't see how Joe Bloggs can accept that.

Im not anti royal like you or simster, nor pro royal. Possible more for than against but more a pragmatic balance of fors or againsts and the economic argument from tourist revenue does add up.

That said you are right, he cannot be allowed to shy away from a legal due process, (maybe there is an exchange to be had with the US for shileding Anne Sacoolas from facing justice in this country).

He should face the full consequence of any proven actions that were illegal. Status should not put you above the law, nor grant immunity. However, if Andrew (somebody I've always thought a particulary heinous creep and a sponger), is found guilty, that makes him guilty of sexual crimes. That doesnt by default add weight to the seperate argument of whether a Royal family is or isnt in the national interest. In the same way if Andrew was our brother or a neighbor in our street, we, our lives or whether our employment is right or wrong are not guilty nor should be bundled up into a single issue by association.

if the royal family do try and shield him from all charges, then that is a different matter entirely

 

[Clive Walker]

Im not anti royal like you or simster, nor pro royal. Possible more for than against but more a pragmatic balance of fors or againsts and the economic argument from tourist revenue does add up.

That said you are right, he cannot be allowed to shy away from a legal due process, (maybe there is an exchange to be had with the US for shileding Anne Sacoolas from facing justice in this country).

He should face the full consequence of any proven actions that were illegal. Status should not put you above the law, nor grant immunity. However, if Andrew (somebody I've always thought a particulary heinous creep and a sponger), is found guilty, that makes him guilty of sexual crimes. That doesnt by default add weight to the seperate argument of whether a Royal family is or isnt in the national interest. In the same way if Andrew was our brother or a neighbor in our street, we, our lives or whether our employment is right or wrong are not guilty nor should be bundled up into a single issue by association.

if the royal family do try and shield him from all charges, then that is a different matter entirely

Im not going to debate the tourism argument with you because that is an entirely different argument. However, everything else I do agree with. I don't think he qualifies for sovereign immunity so he should be in the same position as any other Uk citizen.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Im not anti royal like you or simster, nor pro royal. Possible more for than against but more a pragmatic balance of fors or againsts and the economic argument from tourist revenue does add up.

That said you are right, he cannot be allowed to shy away from a legal due process, (maybe there is an exchange to be had with the US for shileding Anne Sacoolas from facing justice in this country).

He should face the full consequence of any proven actions that were illegal. Status should not put you above the law, nor grant immunity. However, if Andrew (somebody I've always thought a particulary heinous creep and a sponger), is found guilty, that makes him guilty of sexual crimes. That doesnt by default add weight to the seperate argument of whether a Royal family is or isnt in the national interest. In the same way if Andrew was our brother or a neighbor in our street, we, our lives or whether our employment is right or wrong are not guilty nor should be bundled up into a single issue by association.

if the royal family do try and shield him from all charges, then that is a different matter entirely

I agree with you but he hasn't been charged with anything.
The case is a civil one where he is being sued.

 

[rippleman]

You make an interesting observation Clamp, I was talking to the Mrs about this last night...... The firm, the Queen and the next 2 in line Charles and William will obvs prefer for this to go away, but they will all also want to protect the monarchy.

So at what point do they go from trying to protect Andrew to throwing him to the wolves.

If bad stuff or details go public and there's a big public uproar,I'm not so sure they can shield him. They will have to very mindful of public opinion and i wouldnt be surprised if Andy is cut loose to try and protect the survival of the firm from a baying public?

IMO HMQ should have thrown him to the wolves long ago. He has been accused of statutory rape of a minor FFS.

I have huge amount of respect for HMQ. She must do the right thing and force Andrew to face his accusers. Or my respect for her will quickly dissipate.

 

[Doc Lynam]

What's the problem Prince Andrew clearly remembers going to Pizza Express in Woking on that date 20 years ago, case closed.

 

[peterward]

I agree with you but he hasn't been charged with anything.
The case is a civil one where he is being sued.

They want and are pushing for a judge and jury civial case and she is donating all money to charity of trafficking victims. Civil or not, the court of public opinion will do more damage than the type of court .

And if he loses the civil case (and others come out - and its suggested at least one other is), can't imagine he will be able to hide from the legal consequences for too long.

I'm really glad its happening tbh. The fact the young lady is donating all monies and Andrew is trying to hide from it, tells its own story.

 

[peterward]

IMO HMQ should have thrown him to the wolves long ago. He has been accused of statutory rape of a minor FFS.

I have huge amount of respect for HMQ. She must do the right thing and force Andrew to face his accusers. Or my respect for her will quickly dissipate.

couldnt agree more, and I have a hunch she may. She after all will have a lot of her own advisors

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Im not anti royal like you or simster, nor pro royal. Possible more for than against but more a pragmatic balance of fors or againsts and the economic argument from tourist revenue does add up.

Does it though really? I've not seen a convincing case.

I also haven't seen the figures put forward for the tourism an historic royal family still attracts, even if they are no-longer a current one. Take the French for example, the Palace of Versailles is one of the most visited places in the world with the French Royal Family gone some 200 odd years ago. That history still has great tourist economic value even if it's not current.

The British Royal Family as a tourist attraction still has value whether the monarchy is active or not. All that revenue from people visiting the Royal palaces etc. wouldn't be lost altogether.

I actually think the stronger economic argument is to get rid.

 

[highflyer]

I agree with you but he hasn't been charged with anything.
The case is a civil one where he is being sued.

In reputational terms, I don't think that's going to make a lot of difference, detailed allegations have been made, are in the public domain and will be heard and considered in a court. And this is in the context of Andrew's continued association with Epstein AFTER he was convicted as a paedophile and that car crash interview, which has comprehensively undermined any credibility he may have had.

I am personally against the Royal Family, on principle (and I also think the economic arguments in favour are very flimsy indeed). But I don't think it's been the most important battle to choose, or hill to die on, - given overwhelming public opinion in favour.

But I have always detested Andrew. He's arrogant, greedy, entitled and sleazy. and these allegations just back up my opinion of him from stories I've heard from behind the scenes, and the public actions of the man himself. I think it's apparent the Royal Family and the 'firm' have already been shielding him to some extent. It's what they do, it's their default and they are very well practiced at it. But it's not clear exactly what they know, or don't know. It may yet become apparent that they've known for some time of some of the details of what he's been up to (assuming the accusations stand up of course) - in which case they are going to find themselves in a difficult position - where 'cutting him loose' won't be enough and they may be forced to double down, dig in and use all their powers to protect him.

It's already messy and could get much worse.

 

[The Clamp]

Does it though really? I've not seen a convincing case.

I also haven't seen the figures put forward for the tourism an historic royal family still attracts, even if they are no-longer a current one. Take the French for example, the Palace of Versailles is one of the most visited places in the world with the French Royal Family gone some 200 odd years ago. That history still has great tourist economic value even if it's not current.

The British Royal Family as a tourist attraction still has value whether the monarchy is active or not. All that revenue from people visiting the Royal palaces etc. wouldn't be lost altogether.

I actually think the stronger economic argument is to get rid.

Oh, if we redistributed the land, property, art, amassed wealth? No question we’d be up. That’s before we even consider the money it costs just to keep these over-privileged scroungers day to day.
Paying for everything from travel to protection to the best of absolutely everything that they insist upon.

There’d still be plenty of muelling tourists with their noses pressed against the bars at Bucky Palace thinking they’re gonna get a glimpse of her Maj in her dundies, putting out the empties.
Perhaps they could go to court and pay to get a glimpse of old noncey pants himself.

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

We'd get a double economic bonanza if the monarchy were abolished as all the lickers who would like to go an pay their respects to (ex-)Prince Andrew could do it wherever he chooses to live. The palaces would all remain open to the tourists.

 

[highflyer]

Does it though really? I've not seen a convincing case.

I also haven't seen the figures put forward for the tourism an historic royal family still attracts, even if they are no-longer a current one. Take the French for example, the Palace of Versailles is one of the most visited places in the world with the French Royal Family gone some 200 odd years ago. That history still has great tourist economic value even if it's not current.

The British Royal Family as a tourist attraction still has value whether the monarchy is active or not. All that revenue from people visiting the Royal palaces etc. wouldn't be lost altogether.

I actually think the stronger economic argument is to get rid.

Agree.

It's become one of those truisms that doesn't really get examined because it suits people to believe it. There also the question of the value, and potential public income, that could accrue from the royal estates, beyond tourism. And of course the non-monetary value such as rewilding all those grouse and deer-hunting moors (oh, and not shooting birds of prey).

I am sure you can use different methodologies and assumptions to make the case either way. In which case it shouldn't be decided on debatable economics but on principle.

 

[Easy 10]

Quite apart from his ludicrous answers ("I can't sweat"), you don't need to be an expert in body language to see he was lying through his teeth all the way through that Emily Maitlis interview last year. If he's like that under pressure from a BBC hack, imagine what he'd be like under forensic questioning from the FBI. He'd quite literally be sweating like a rapist.

 

[The Clamp]

Quite apart from his ludicrous answers ("I can't sweat"), you don't need to be an expert in body language to see he was lying through his teeth all the way through that Emily Maitlis interview last year. If he's like that under pressure from a BBC hack, imagine what he'd be like under forensic questioning from the FBI. He'd quite literally be sweating like a rapist.

Exactly. That Maitlis interview illustrated perfectly how he had no idea just how bad a liar he is. Why did he not realise how badly he would come across? Because he has never, in his entire life been asked to give an account of himself. He had no idea how pathetic he would appear.

 

[Bry Nylon]

I've always been broadly pro-monarchy and believe the Queen has given years of selfless service to this country and been nothing but a force for good. But I've come to the view that given what is to follow in her place, once her time is up we should consign the concept of a heredity monarchy to the bin.
Out of children, Anne is the only one I have any respect for. Meanwhile, Charles and his children and their spouses are all ****ing useless and bring nothing to the table.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Oh, if we redistributed the land, property, art, amassed wealth? No question we’d be up. That’s before we even consider the money it costs just to keep these over-privileged scroungers day to day.
Paying for everything from travel to protection to the best of absolutely everything that they insist upon.

There’d still be plenty of muelling tourists with their noses pressed against the bars at Bucky Palace thinking they’re gonna get a glimpse of her Maj in her dundies, putting out the empties.
Perhaps they could go to court and pay to get a glimpse of old noncey pants himself.

Agree.

It's become one of those truisms that doesn't really get examined because it suits people to believe it. There also the question of the value, and potential public income, that could accrue from the royal estates, beyond tourism. And of course the non-monetary value such as rewilding all those grouse and deer-hunting moors (oh, and not shooting birds of prey).

I am sure you can use different methodologies and assumptions to make the case either way. In which case it shouldn't be decided on debatable economics but on principle.

All of this stuff wouldn't just disappear. We'd still need a head of state who would need to be supported by the taxpayer. All the abolitionists will be screaming even louder when it ends up as Boris Johnson.

 

[The Clamp]

All of this stuff wouldn't just disappear. We'd still need a head of state who would need to be supported by the taxpayer. All the abolitionists will be screaming even louder when it ends up as Boris Johnson.

I think you’re right in the sense that they’re not going to have to pack a portmanteau into the back of a taxi and move to a council estate. They’d obviously still be afforded a life of privilege most of us can only dream of.
But there could do with a bit of curbing of things like Queen’s Consent and the unquestioned spending of public money.